The world moves on people. Still running on WIN95 and Office95/Lotus/Coral, still driving a Model-T, I don't think so.
Security leaks today are far greater risk to business than a few bob upgrading, plus virus infection, you lose the lot. MS are trying to stay ahead of those who strive to hack.

How do you conduct business with others if you don't stay abreast, you can't open docs created in new versions etc etc...more reasons to than to not !

Legally businesses should also archive/delete old documents to recover storage space/save money, plus ensure that they are meeting any public liability in the services they deliver.........come on people 12 years behind, move on for your own piece of mind!!

Open Office, here I come. Last time I looked at it there were two shortcomings that were show-stoppers for me. Guess what; now, one has been implement into OO and the other I don't use anymore so don't care.

In spare time I'm also finally getting serious about Ubuntu; guess it's time to do something. Microsoft's rising prices are one thing, but their abandonment of an installed base such as they have is another, and it's a show-stopper in my opinion.
I've decided I'll make the switch before MS starts planting the self-exploding bombs in their updates (just being silly, but ... ).

Coke is way better than Pepsi...

Ok, I've read a lot about switching to OpenOffice. I see that it can handle most office suite tasks. Does it have an alternative to Outlook? If not, what do those of you who Use OO do for schedule and contact management? The calendar and task organization are what keep many of us tied to Outlook, even though it's bulky and slow. A simple pop-up reminder program won't cut it with the work I do.

That is an excellent question. The answer is different depending on whether you need groupware like Exchange for the back end.

For standalone there is an app called Sunbird that does calenar and an extension that links it into thunderbird (called Lightning). Have not used them so I cannot speak to it. I like the google calendar myself along with Gmail it works well. I have it pull my pop mail from my server then I use Thunderbird to IMAP into it. That way I keep my mail synchronized between 3 machines.

If you need groupware there are some open source alternatives like Open-Xchange. There are open source groupware email/calendar clients that you can get as well to connect to them. You can also mix and match and use MS Exchange with the open source client or use the Open source server with Outlook.

And you can use OWA (Outlook Web Access) if you are corporate tied to Exchange.. OWA is a really good alternative if your company is still wasting money on Microsoft services. OWA work as shorcut and has almost every feature you may need

This will prevent users from getting the Service Pack, and that's dumb on Microsoft's part.

Little did many notice that Microsoft changed its .doc/xls formats seven times in the last fifteen years. 2007 brought Microsoft's suckers an entirely new debacle: MS-OOXML. And word came yesterday that Office 2007 will have to be "updated" to allow for Microsoft's "deprecations" of its own MS-OOXML format, meaning, it won't even bother to put all of MS-OOXML's supposed features in its flagship product, so it has to update Office 2007 to remove them.

I ask for the 100th time: Is there any good reason for anyone to be paying good money for Microsoft's ridiculously-coded load of crap?

No.

I think one that should have been allowed is that in order to view an old file it forced you to convert it to a newer format. That way you could at least view it, just not in its native format.
I suppose that's pretty close to keep support, but I think a more elegant solution.

As a consumer and a technology advisor to companies, this is one more reason for me to advise my clients to get off the MS treadmill. I have one that is ready to s*** his whole company (small, only a 1.5M/year) over to Mac. His apps are web based and he is tired of the constant upgrades.

I myself just started using Ubuntu on my laptop for much of my work (still need more work to get Photoshop CS3 working with Ubuntu) and I get new machine performance out of a 4 year old laptop. Aside from a few apps there is no reason to boot windows anymore. I am a total Linux noob and it literally took me about an hour to resize the NTFS partition on my laptop, install Ubuntu on the freed up space, and configure a custom boot-load (keeping windows bootloader as primary making no mods to windows partition). Then I installed the nvidia driver (generic installed by default) and have not looked back. There is a massive amount of information and help for even a total noob like me to get everyting working, even my Verizon EVDO card works easily, and that even better than under windows.

The sad thing is that Ubuntu is easier to network than Windows when connecting to a Windows Fileserver.

Of course the uninformed will believe that the only path is the Microsoft path. More power to them, a fool and his money are soon parted and all that...

If you calculate the license savings in even a smaller company it is enough to pay an IT professional to work through the hurdles that can come along with the open source path.

If you must run MS Office, then don't apply SP3. Problem solved...or at least put off for another day.

You have lost me when you start your statement. How does switching to a Mac solve all the upgrade problems?

The biggest cost to a company is not the cost of the software. It's the people. After that, it's the rent. Most new start up are having more of their people to work from home to save money. Netflix is one of the leading company that does exactly that. People show up once or twice a week. There are great benefit for everyone. For employee, it's flexible hours. For employer, that mean employee are on call 24/7, no excuse on missing deadline. And of course save on rent too. In Manhattan, office space cost any where from 15 to 40 per square feet.

People don't want to change. The reason why Vista and Office "suck" because they completely changed the interface. For the past decade, Windows and Office has the same boring interface, people can easily jump from one version to another. Then come Vista and Office 2007 which throw everyone offboard.

Mac's do not feel as much like a treadmill to most users. The marriage between the hardware and the software are a bit tighter with Applie products. There was no "Vista Ready" hardware requirements with Mac.

In the experience of the client I mentioned, he saves time and money with a Mac. Of course his people cost more than IT costs, but every little bit helps. Each check he does not have to write for additional licenses is money in his pocket.

By demonstrating that there are viable alternatives by mentioning Ubuntu, I bolster this case.

Of course there is no "mac ready" because most don't work for Mac. Windows works with anything.

With Linux, you have to really search to find any good driver. If there is a problem, guess what, more search.

"With Linux, you have to really search to find any good driver. If there is a problem, guess what, more search."

Totally untrue. I installed Ubuntu and it had drivers for all my hardware. Give the live CD a try and I bet it will find all your hardware automagically.

Mac works with the hardware it comes with. For most this is sufficient. For some enthusiasts, this is not going to work. Of course there are those that can get it working on other hardware if they try hard enough, but I would not put such a hybrid into a production environment. The consistency of the restricted types of hardware are actually a good thing in that you don't find as many obscure compatibility issues as you do with Windows.

I have never had to "find" a driver. They were all there. I have installed 4 different distributions (Ubuntu, Suse, Mandriva, Fedora) on servers desktops and one laptop. I only had to activate a driver once because the laptop had an Nvidia vid card and Ubuntu by default will not use a closed source driver. You have to tell it that it is ok to use it, but it took 5 clicks in an easy interface.

You should do as another recommended, download and burn the live CD it will boot into Ubuntu and let you try it out.

Everything just works, my wireless, my sound, mouse, all that. The only gotcha was that my wireless card used a different mac address for Ubuntu compared to what it was on Windows with the same laptop. Since I use MAC filtering for security, it threw me for a loop until I figured this out.

You are missing out on the end-to-end solution that Microsoft provides that in the long run is less expensive; more stable and secure, adaptable and robust than any other combination of platforms and technologies.

The story of Microsoft is that of a full product stack -- from server and client OS to enterprise and information worker/productivity applications and everything in between to proactively secure, monitor and manage it.

Microsoft's value proposition is enabling people and in turn, organizations to be more productive by working smarter.

The "marriage" that you speak of between Mac hardware and software is because Macintosh makes an OS exclusively for its hardware, unlike Microsoft which must be compatible with and portable across the majority, if not all of the hardware vendors on the market, including Mac.

That's not to say that Macs do not have their well respected niche market but let's not get carried away and think for a second that they are in any way shape or form enterprise ready.

-LMS

A question for you LMS, why are the largest linux farms in the world in Redmond?

Marrix, I am not sure how we got on the topic of Linux farms from my discussion thread; however, since you decided to toss it into the mix, let's discuss it.

Recent server OS sales figures:

CNET http://www.news.com/2100-1016_3-6041804.html
InformationWeek http://www.informationwe...bSection=Product%20News
ZDNet http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6041804.html

Here are a couple of added bonuses:

TechTarget http://searchenterprisel...id39_gci1260325,00.html
InformationWeek http://www.informationwe...tml?articleID=160500638

Big names and symbols make big targets, keep firing away.

I'm sorry, you had a point -- what was it again?

-LMS

One word: VMWare. Just make a couple of virtual machines with old OSes and older versions of office.

Yet, it seems MS is hell bent on destroying itself. As each day passes, Windows is feeling more and more like an anachronism.

This is a good approach; however, do not forget about Microsoft Virtual Server/PC and Microsoft SoftGrid application virtualization as possible solutions as well. You can find out more about Microsoft SoftGrid in one of my previous posts in this discussion threat.

-LMS

Backward compatibility.

That is just the direction Microsoft is coming from when they stick it to you.

MS is your friend! They are PROTECTING YOU! My @ss.

And as for the other idiots pushing OO, what in the hell does that have to do with older file formats from back in the day when OO was more of a left field niche product than it is now. But then these same OO folks are still pushing Linux for the desktop where they can trot out OO as one of the 3 applications actually available that address personal use.

If you want to use OO, do so.
But it has nothing to do with compatibility to legacy data and document access.
Oh....

So how does OO's ability to open any version of an Office document while your freshly patched copy of Office will NOT have nothing to do with legacy data and document access?

If you need a different application just to open your older office documents, would it not be prudent to examine the feasibility of switching...especially in light of the consididerable difference in cost?

Anyone who is not "corporate" and still uses Office is an idiot. Unfortunately, there are millions of those idiots.

However, recently I've seen there has been one less each time a 90-day Office trial subscription expires on a new consumer PC. Word (no pun intended) is getting around to just go OpenOffice afterward.

Any one who opt for OO instead of MS Office just an idiot. Have any one see a job description require a software skill in OO? I highly doubt it. If I put Excel and/or Access into the search, million of jobs show up. That's the different between an productivity product and a hobby product.

Anyone who wastes money on MS Office is an idiot. Who wants to be forced to pay M$ everytime you want to read your content? Who wants to be forced to upgrade M$ products all the time because support for your files will disappear?

No thanks.

If you had a real job requiring communication with people at other companies - you would have Office. That is what is used in the real corporate world - just like Windows.

Did you not catch that I was writing about the millions of PCs owned by users *not* in a "productivity" (i.e., corporate) environment?

Agreed--regarding a corporate/real job and the de facto cross-corporate standard, MS Office. (But, I'm not talking about those people. Do people read before replying?)

*edited*

huh? I would send a PDF, not some unreliable M$ format.

...and how many of those non-productive people take work home or work from home and would like compatibility? 100% compatibility.

*double edited*

I think you'd best reconsider that foolishness.

Schools, both Secondary and Post Secondary now use OpenOffice regularly as a viable alternative to the M$ crap. That's where the grassroots movement starts. M$ in the past did just that, seeding schools with their products to get entire generations hooked on their wares. Now the shoe is on the other foot and there's little they can do about it.

I *am* a corporate user. I *use* OO despite the fact that out official suite is M$ Office. I'm certainly not alone.

So0 much misinformation here.

Yes, the real world uses M$ office... and yes, OO's interoperability with those products is good enough to get it through at least 75 to 80% of the time.

I see it Every Day.

I often do using OO's PDF Export feature. It also has the advantage of ensuring that the original version of my document is preserved, unedited by some corporate flunky.

...and how much can the recipient edit that PDF junk?

MS is the industry standard in most firms and that is a fact. People spout off about others but the fact remains staff is trained on Office period. I frankly could careless about the others that the anti MS trolls post here. My office uses Office so I will stick with that.

75 to 80% in the business world is not acceptable. Maybe for you but the exec will never go for that. You can keep that crap we'll stick with a solid Office product.

Only entry level jobs will focus the requirements on Office product skill. Anyone who can use word or excel can use OO quite easily. I use them both and aside from some less common items like conditional formatting in excel, there is not that much difference for day to day use.

You don't get it don't you? How often do an average person Excel, Access, PowerPoint and Outlook at home? Next to now. If they do use it, they use the bare basic features in the programs that can be accomplished with hundreds of alternative out there. The only reason why people bought it is for productivity.

Stop listen to what the troll wrote. You can easily identify them by their typo such as M$ instead of MS.

Great, I would love to jump start with a middle management job straight out of college. Where can I get one?

And beside, if someone already know MS Office, why in the world would they want to learn something that is NOT IN DEMAND???

First place to look would be Dice.com or Monster. And middle management is certainly not the only place to land. I did not even have a degree and jumped into a Senior Project Manager Role. Office skills are only incedental to most jobs today. Clerical (entry level) jobs where you simply write documents and/or do data entry are the only ones that call for that as a core skill.

Try reading before responding. My point was that if you can use one, you can use the other with some small amount of thought. It is less a learning process, than applying what you already know by using a button in a different menu.

If you knew MS Office and OO you would know this. So, either you are being deliberately disagreeable, or you don't know this.

I guess you PM don't assume everyone is a programmer. I current work in a procurement company, and the whole application is written by programmers for programmers. I am telling you, it suck ball. My point is, not every is Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Larry Page or Sergey Brin. Just because it works for you, it mean jack sh1t. I have a very good friend who does not even have a high school diploma and he makes sh1t load of money before he hit 30. Is that mean everyone make that much. Hell no. I will I can make 1/10 of what he is making.

PDF's are editable if you want to. If editing is a requirement though, i will send an ODF as i want to be sure the company is not forced to buy expensive software from M$ to edit it or have to work about incompatibilities.

Written by programmers for programmers (scary). Does that mean you have to write SQL queries in order to use it?

I don't assume that anyone is a programmer. My first PM gig was hardware/networking related. But I have done VOIP, Java, php, Oracle, infrastructure conversion, cold fusion, telecom, and cabling, projects. Most of the people I have worked with on these projects are good enough to figure out office and OO. Some of them (Cable installers especially) were missing teeth and barely spoke English (they were born in the US but were just rednecks) but they could figure out how to use Word or Open Office if given the chance.

As for your friend, figure out what he is doing and emulate him. He is likely someone who is not afraid to take risks and it has paid off for him.

If they forget customers's worries and needs earlier or later they'll be paid the same way.

I'm amused because with Open Office and Office XP we can open and work with more file formats than people that have spent thousands more on newer products. Oh well. Live and learn.

However older is older, less featured and secure, even if already containing more than what the average people use.(let's not get there)

my point is you CAN STILL WORK WITH OFFICE 2003 SP2, no one forces you to install SP3 so, D O N T F A L L I N T O T H E T R A P !

Don't fall into that trap... but just be warned that you will not be getting new updates if you stick to the old version (it is recommended not to run malware programs at this point)

I dumped the Microsoft crap over three years ago and have never looked back. OpenOffice reads and writes the lowest common denominator of M$ files, doesn't insinuate itself into my OS or try and take over my machine, is lighter on resources and most importantly does all I need it to do without adding a plethora of features that only a deranged hamster in its delerium would find "useful". And it's free.

I use it corporately too despite my organization's commitment to M$ Office and have no interoperability issues.

The easiest solution to M$ BS:

Just Say No.

I did to both newer versions of their Office suite and Vista and no leather-winged demon from the pit came whirling out of the void to eat me.

Can Leopard work with file types created ten years ago?

which file types. be more specific. in a lot of cases it works with more than it did ten years ago.

by it i mean mac os, not leopard (obviously)

Leopard is an OS and shouldn't be compared to Office.

I made a reg file with info from the kb article and seems to be okay, so far:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938810/en-us

Honestly I think you guys are all dropping bricks for no reason. Phasing out legacy file formats is a good thing. If your old Packard Bell is still running Word 6 on Windows 95 and you need to interchange files with your office you can still change the registry to enable the legacy format. But hopefully this will force you to either upgrade or switch to OO or something that supports newer formats. All of you ODF people should actually be happy about this because MS is essentially killing off support for legacy proprietary binary formats.

You have obviously never worked for a company before? We have files dating back 20 years, and legally cannot "migrate them" to another format. They belong to our clients.

So keep a machine around that has the older programs on it. I still have a 386 with a 5 1/4" drive in case one of these days I need a file that is on floppy discs.

eh. they could still keep read only support in these things. if anything, im sure someone else will have a reader for those files... open office for instance. it's not the end of the world to remove support from the main app.

And everyone in your company has to open these files? If so, apply the ADM and you're good. If just a couple, apply the registry patch. We have QXD's from Quark 4 and INDD's from InDesign 2 sitting around that we can't upgrade either and the most recent versions of these programs can only open the last version. So we just have a couple of machines that have Quark 4 through 6.5 and InDesign 2 through 5 and if we need to open these files we go to these. Its very rare though.

Documents that need to be preserved and not mofidied should be archived as images, such as PDF, TIFF, etc.

-LMS

The Point is, Nothing should be blocked. All of a sudden Microsoft has become big brother of security. What a Joke. On top of that, the fact they are blocking some of there own software shows how clueless they are. In English. They do this type of crap so they can force people to upgrade to there latest copy. Could you imagine if Ford made a car that would shut off after a period of time, because there is a newer model out?

No, the point is that someone needs to get these older, less secure formats gone. Whether they switch to a newer version of what they already use or switch to OO doesn't really matter. Getting the jackable, embeddable, cruft off the system is the point.

Do you honestly think the DOT or CAFE would allow us to drive a Model T on the highways now? Really? Sorry. Some older cars just weren't built for todays speeds, safety, and emissions standards and *many* feel that they should not be allowed on our roads.

Score another failure for our much beloved car analogies.

"All of a sudden Microsoft has become big brother of security."

Are you kidding, Thats a joke! MS and Security is this biggest oxymoron since Military Intelligence.

Agreed. I work in the security community and No One in this community takes M$ "security" seriously.

The Word 97 format is not blocked. These are some of the formats blocked by default in SP3:

Word 1.x for Windows 33
Word 4.x for Macintosh 33
Word 1.2 for Windows Japan 34
Word 1.2 for Windows Korea 35
Word 5.x for Macintosh 35
Word 1.2 for Windows Taiwan 36
Word 2.x for Windows 45
Word 2.x for Windows BiDi 46
Word 2.x for Windows Japan 46
Word 2.x for Windows Korea 47
Word 2.x for Windows Taiwan 48
Word 6.0 for Windows 101

These are NOT blocked by default:
Word 6.0 for Macintosh 104
Word 95 RTM 104
Word 95 Beta 105
Word 97 for Windows 193
Word 98 for Macintosh 193
Word 2001 for Macintosh 195
Word X for Macintosh 195
Word 9 for Windows 217
Word 10 for Windows 257
Word 11 for Windows 268
Word 2004 for Macintosh 268
Word 11 saved by Word 12 274

What are the chances you'll recieve a document made in Word 2.x for Windows?...

depends on what you do and/or your organization does. The real point is, a single vendor should _never_ control _my_ data. When they do, things like this happen.

M$ actions here illustrate the reason an open standard document format like ODF is needed. M$OOXML is _not_ an open standard and will result in this same thing down the line.

If your data is stored in an open format like ODF, you could always switch vendors to retain support of _your_ content.

I like your point but you missed something. MSFT can block any file format, including ODF. Its the OS that is blocking the file, not the application.

The problem isn't even Windows. Its simply MSFT. Remember, your pocketbook does your talking, you want to send MSFT a message, stop supporting their products.

The real point is, a single vendor should _never_ control _my_ data.

ROFLMAO!!!

Microsoft controls your data.

That's funny. Cuz here I thought I could always save my documents in RTF, or, hell, even plain old text format if I really wanted to... and last I checked, most older MS Office formats could be opened, read, and edited by damn near every document writer out there...

Sorry man, if you are not in control of your data, that's your problem, not Microsoft's. Not even they can cure chronic stupidity.

I don't buy their products, except for Windows to play games. everything else i do, i make sure not to use anything from M$.

the problem is, most companies are run by total morons who have zero understanding of technology and willingly throw tons of money at companies like M$.

i make sure not to use anything from M$

Which apparently makes him an expert on all things Microsoft....

i switched to game consoles for games. my 65" tv and surround sound system is WAY more enjoyable for gaming than anything i've ever had in a pc. computer for work, console for gaming. i switched to a mac 3 years ago and have been fine ever since.

I do not need to smoke crack to know it is bad.

"What are the chances you'll recieve a document made in Word 2.x for Windows?..."

Get? Very low. Want to read one I already have?
Beats me because I don't recall what error I got
when I tried to open a .doc file the other day.
What M$ has done is made files that were created
with their state of the art product a dozen
decades ago inaccessible in their new old
platform. (MSO '03 is old, so SP3... :)

Current users of M$ 'state-of-the-art' formats
can extrapolate, and many will need to make
plans to port documents into a newer format
every life cycle.

Dude, your posts give you away. Now be honest... is it YOUR 65-inch TV or is it daddy's?

What is the big fuss here? It only disables formats EARLIER THAN EVEN OFFICE 97...i.e.10+ year old formats. Then if a vulnerability pops up/some worm starts taking advantage of old buggy code, then also you'll cry foul.

The big fuss is that it's been done by MS. So you'll obviously get a bunch of either anti-MS or Pro Mac, Pro Linux (same thing really) zealots making an end of the world scenerio. Granted, this time I have to scold MS, since they should make it known that there are converters for this kind of thing - and if you don't want to convert then really, you just want to complain. But otherwise, really there's nothing to see here. If you take a look at many applications out there, though this is not the same thing, there's trend in settings "security OR compatibility", "performance OR compatibility", etc. It takes alot of work to make old as dino tech work with what's out now and this is one step closer to being at least 'more secure'.
I only wish they did this with Vista as well and instead of making 32 bit versions, made it 64 with 32 compatibility with only maybe Basic in a 32 bit flavor.

OK NOW, but next year Office 95/97 will be next if this is allowed. Thats the problem. and it only gets worse.

Historical documents are now invalid with SP3 and will be forever more. Again thats a problem. Most companies archive that data for years and years in backup archives, and if ever audited they MUST pull it up. But now with this change Future OFFICE suites will not open those documents ever again... Thats not right.

Techadmin has already released a patch to correct this malfeasance Per request from technet users wanting an easy solution to this injustice from simply allowing a Microsoft Update pushed SP to go through... Personally I never allow a MU push on a company network. Its always tested first. In our case I will not apply the SP to office and problem solved. But when it comes to future Office suites its going to be a problem. In my book MS has just signed its death warrant. Not supporting their own format is the beginning of the end of Office. Might as well just make the move to Open Office standards for the future and save your company the headache of dealing with more of MS Bull.

Maybe car manufacturers should start offering eight track radios as an option for playing all of those archived eight track tapes.

-LMS

So what about the converters available for office? Go to google and search for Microsoft Office Converter and you should find a package that allows you to convert from office 97/2k formats to 2003. There is also another package that allows Office 2k/2k3 to read and save Office 2007 files. So what's the problem? Download the pack and convert your files. As far as Office 97 goes, anyone, especially Systems Admins, should have seen this coming and dealt with it long ago. The file format is 10 years old for goodness sake!

"What's the problem?" Glad you asked. :) I work with a volunteer organization of over 1,000 members who use Word to submit written materials that are then validated by another volunteer. Since these volunteers are spread out across the US. and have very different computer configurations, I can't control the version of Word they use to submit their work. Word 97 may be an older format, but it is still alive and well in the real world of end users. This change has meant that I now spend more time sorting out file formats with people and less time getting actual work done.

There is also a principle of trust at play here. I could understand a change like this being released in a new version of Office, sort of like when Windows stopped running older DOS apps. To make this change part of a service pack that was supposed to patch bugs and security holes in an existing product that worked well before such a patch seems underhanded. Do you honestly think this is a security issue? If so, why hasn't Microsoft issued a press release warning everyone not to open Word 97 files at all cost. Why would they disable the opening of files from competing software in a matter of fact way but fail to warn computer users of the grave risks they face when handling these formats? And while we're on the subject, what risk do computer users face by being forced to install versions of older apps to get at their files and installing conversion packages to process files outside of Office? Doesn't that negate the improved security Office imposes by refusing to open older file formats? If they're such a giant risk, maybe we need to take Microsoft to court for selling us software that made insecure and dangerous files, so dangerous that their own service pack had to disable opening them. Isn't that negligence on their part? It would be interesting to see how they'd respond to that line of enquiry. Unfortunately, I don't have the money to go after them. Open Office anyone?

OK so I understand and appreciate your situation and, yes you're right, this change should have been applied with Office 2007, and not have affected Office 2003. But let's be real, did you expect MS to support office 97 forever? I imagine you have file format issues regardless, being that office 2003 files don't open in office 97 (without a converter). I guess I think that IT admins should have seen this coming and accounted for it. For instance, in your situation, I would have required everyone to use .rtf formatted docs to start with since they are not dependent on which version of Office you are using. RTF is specifically meant to be used in cross-platform situations, and would have better suited your needs. I know that RTF is older than office 97, but in my opinion, is more likely to be supported by MS because of it's original purpose.

You're right that system admins should have seen this coming. In some situations, the system admin and the person who actually gets work done are two different people with different viewpoints. I'm stuck in the middle because I'm notthe the person with the final say on what happens on our server. I have argued that we should only accept certain cross-platform file types until I'm blue in the face. The response I get is that it's unfair to make our volunteers learn to save files as rtf when "everybody can save a Word file." It's baloney! And I'm still stuck with it. When Microsoft makes changes like this without announcing it, people like me are stuck with the hassles. I don't want some of our volunteers going into their registry. They would do major damage in there.

You can make the case that system admins and IT professionals could see this coming, and you are right. I think there are more people like me in the world than the number of system admins. We're fairly literate, competent people, and our skills and training lie in other fields. We aren't idiots as some have said on this forum. We update our technology because we want to be responsible people who protect our organizations and want to prevent worms and viruses from spreading. In this case, I think our system admin is the idiot half the time. Microsoft knows about people like me, and they count on us to get frustrated and give up, accepting their new way of doing things. It's backfiring on them though, because people like me are gaining in number and in our anger toward these kinds of tactics. Big business may be their primary customer, but there are enough of us "little people" that we can make a dent in their bottom line if we try.

Why not? .txt ansi will be supported Forever why would an equally as common .doc format NOT be easily opened in ANY upgraded office bundle? other then to cause a problem for users that continue to use Office 97 Pro Office XP Pro, and Open office? Point is thats the ONLY reason MS is doing it to FORCE the consumer public that havs been using a tried and true office suite for years now to upgrade to a bulky bloatedware version that will likely slow their machine down and Certainly cost more money then anyone should be forced to ever pay AGAIN. Office was expensive and always has been. So Your saying that MS is now saying that the $500 or so I spent back in the day is invalid because I have not given them another $500 for a newer version that I never needed until they did this Bull?

Now if Consumers with Office 95/97/xp Pro/Enterprise do not upgrade to Office 2003 or 2007 they will no longer be compatible with others that prob have newer versions of the office suite. That here in is the problem.

MS knows full well what they are doing with this and it is NOT a service to their customers, its a DISSERVICE to those that have not been extorted for more money yet, that have been happy with their expensive product they have had for years now, and are now incompatible with the anyone that uses a newer version from now on. For no reason but SPITE on the part of MS.

You champion Microsoft but send readers to Google to search for Microsoft Office converters? The least you could have done is refer them to Microsoft Live Search http://www.live.com or simply point them to the Microsoft Downloads Web site http://www.microsoft.com/downloads.

-LMS

One word, OpenOffice. Microsoft can go crawl in a hole and die.

Microsoft employs many people and supports many industries and charities.

Hold yer breath.

Hear that? Sounds like...yes it sounds like a tiny violin.

You omitted the Republican Party!!!

As Hollywood__ said, if you're a system admin don't install SP3 at your company. While using WSUS just deny install for the update package.

Here's a good idea, dont install SP3.

Exactly. If you're a system administrator, that is your job... to evaluate service packs and updates to determine if they are necessary and whether or not they introduce problems for your users.

When in doubt, don't.

Wow. Brains.

Here?

Who'da thunk it....

sure, and get all your machines owned by all the security vulnerabilities SP3 closes. What happens when SP4 comes out?

Burying your head in the sand does not make problems go away.

One would think that this is an anti-competitive act performed by an organization, would it not?

I imagine that there will be a DOJ inquiry into this.

There is nothing anti-competitive about it. In fact, it's quite to the contrary; this opens up the door if you will -- at least according to some, for competition to sweeten the sour taste left in the mouths of the anti-Microsoft flock.

-LMS

[deleted]

All the more reason for the use of the truely open ISO format, ODF.

Seems to me this has more to do with making open office incompatible for universal file opening, then anything else. As as I recall Open office makes use of the old Office 97/xp formats, which SP3 now does not allow to be opened.

All this tells me is to not install SP3 for office 2003 enterprise, and any company that has is now crippled and will require a full enterprise wide reinstall of everything from OS to program files and office suite in order to get back to a state of Office 2003 SP2.

Hopefully this will be able to be done with images and pushing out via a network, but if not its one hell of a pain in the a** if you ask me. This is precisely why most IT staffs do not jump the gun on any service pack for at least 6 to 8 months so they know how MS is going to screw their business this time... Its becoming a common practice if you ask me... MS has no care for their consumers beyond what they have purchased in the last 6 months. And if its not Vista or Office 2008, Then they quite simply want nothing to do with you cause in their eyes your worthless and not contributing to their world dominating monopolistic information controlling ideology. Little less then a Pirate in their eyes cause why else would you not turn around and give them $500 plus to have the latest version of their OS & office suite that offers little more then eye candy that slows your machine down to a crawl? I mean god forbid you use a piece of software that has worked for 4-5 years plus and has become a proven platform, Or worse use a competitor but want to maintain universal compatibility with all businesses.

Since MS sees no value from us as consumers, I say its time we show them that they have no value to us as developers. In the end, If your at the disadvantage that you installed SP3 for office 2003, or are one of the millions of Office XP users still out there, It may be time to take a hard look at open office to maintain universal compatibility, and lock out MS from the party from now on.

Dude...

Seems to me this has more to do with making open office incompatible for universal file opening, then anything else. As as I recall Open office makes use of the old Office 97/xp formats, which SP3 now does not allow to be opened.

Wtf?

If anything this helps OO.o in the eyes of those who cannot deal with the new formats.

no I was meaning Office is trying to lock Open office formats out of MS Office suite by not allowing their Open office document formats to be opened in newer updated versions of MS Office.

I 100% agree its every excuse in the world to have more companies go to Open office then every before. and abandon MS Office suites for good...

I am now a Microsoft Solution Provider that will be using Open Office! Office 2007 is killing me on support and Vista is way to clunky to administer.

This has to be the first time that I have seen someone complain about there beeing too much an abundance of revenue opportunity.

Update your skill set.

-LMS

I hope this is the begining of the end for Microsoft as we know it.
Or they modify their behaviour or tehy will sink. Instead of have the best lawyer team they should worry about releasing decent software, and they are not doing it.
Vista and Office 2007 are huge steps back. And alternative software already begun growing as not saw before. For ex: Open Office is a great FREE tool. It is not perfect, but if you compare it against the $400 MS office suite... well, it won by miles. Only give a little more time and Microsoft will begin selling hot dogs to feed their lawver team. I still hope they wake up first. Lawyers are a necessary, but YOUR business should take precedence!

MS has made mistakes recently with Vista and Office. But don't pretend that you can be nearly as productive with Open Office as you can be with Microsoft Office. And no, Microsoft won't be selling hot dogs anytime soon, unless if it's being ordered from one of their surface PCs.

Good old Microshaft sticking it to its customers once again.

1.) They do not force you to download SP3.

2.) They do not force you to work with documents created by software released half a decade ago.

3.) Blow it out your...

1.) They do not force you to download SP3.

Sure, no one forces you, but have fun getting owned by all the security holes patched in SP3. Nothing like a "forced" upgrade.

"Another administrator expressed strong displeasure about finding SP3 to be uninstallable."

You mean un-uninstallable.

Good eye.

So people want Microsoft to create secure programs yet they expect everything they have ever bought or created to be compatible. You have to choose. That's the problem with Vista. They tried to do both and made both sides unhappy. The people who want security say Microsoft didn't go far enough, and the people who want compatibility say they went too far.

And for the record it's not up to Microsoft to write a driver for your it's up to the people who made the device.

do you have any idea how many documents exist out there in the digital realm that have been made with Office 97-2003? Millions if not trillions. And now Office 2003 SP3 and Office 2007 can not open one of them? thats BULL s***! And that is EVERY reason not to upgrade EVER. I mean for my clients companies to convert their entire file system and every document to the new format would take years just to update to the new format alone. Thats UNACCEPTABLE. and its NOT unreasonable to expect that a version of office you purchase would have backward compatibility to open historical documents from your company past created on that providors product.

I agree with what you said. BUT people aren't understanding what MS is doing. IF they made a 100% new OS with no backwards compatibility then people might say "well I have to buy new software anyway so why not just use another OS" so they make backwards compatibility. I know what some of you are going to say "If MS made a good OS then there wouldn't be a problem and people would use MS". Not really because people will get pissed and just for spite go to another OS no matter how good the new version of Windows is. Other already have a bad taste in their mouth and wouldn't give the new OS a second chance...the only reason their still using Windows is because there is backwards compatibility and they don't have to buy all new software.

My thought is that once there is a MAJOR change in OS' then MS will make a totally new type of OS. The next type of OS will be maybe an OS that can be used by just talking kind of like in Star Trek or an OS that you can manipulate things in the OS in a different way other than mouse and keyboard...maybe like the computers in Minority Report or Earth Final Conflict. Or a combination of both or something totally different I didn't mention. If something like that happens then MS will have to make a new OS because they won't be able to write it around NT. Until then MS is kind of forced to keep on track that they're on.

Do it think they should support XP and Office O3, yeah probably. If it were Windows 98 I would say no, but XP is pretty secure and people still have problems with Vista so until people are happy enough with Vista then they should support XP. I haven't even seen office 07 so I don't know if its good or not.

This is typical, old school IT BS. Don't change what is not broken... You HAVE to keep document formats up to date, just as you HAVE to keep Operating Systems up to date. If you didn't see this coming, then you should not be in IT.

Alternatively, you could use an open-source document format, that can always be supported by any future document reader/writer if they so chose. And writing a batch conversion program to update versions would also be a trivial task with the entire specification available to anyone who wants it.

Are you suggesting it is easier and more effective to convert all existing MS office documents to "open-source document format" then to open and save them in current MS office format? I can see you have not considered the issue at hand at all.

digital realm that have been made with Office 97-2003? Millions if not trillions. And now Office 2003 SP3 and Office 2007 can not open one of them?

Do you even read what you write here?

Office 2003 cannot open Office 2003 files? Really? Huh....from what's stated above, it looks like even 97 docs are still supported.

And that is EVERY reason not to upgrade EVER.

Sometimes I just cannot believe the crap spewed on this forum. It's confounding.

...if they so chose.

Huh...kinda like if Microsoft so chose to say....stop supporting older, much less secure formats?

Yeah, that's better.

Wait, how?

This is typical uneducated cattl..., er, user BS.

You CANNOT always keep formats up to date, not the least of which are reasons of LEGAL requirements. Documents in many cases CANNOT be changed and must be maintained in their original format for legal purposes.

Oh, and yes - it if works, don't d*** with it. Saves time and money and the pinhead bean counters who generally run businesses love that.

First of all, I'm a Systems Admin who HAS taken the necessary steps to keep my documents up to date and guess what, my company is not affected by the change. Second, what sort of legal documents require that the version of the file not be changed? I think your mistaken, in the fact that if you convert from office 97 to 2003 you shouldn't see any difference in the actual formatting of the document. Plus, what good is a legal document if you are unable to open it. Finally, this whole situation is a perfect example of why the quote "Don't fix what's not broken" is such a load of crap from an IT perspective. Sure, businesses love it when you tell them that they don't need to spend money on something that's not broken. But how do they feel when MS stops supporting certain file formats and they can no longer open their old a$$ documents because of some "pinhead" IT guy who didn't think it was necessary to keep up with current file formats? I know I'd be pissed.

your right I should have said Office 95-XP. I mistypeed the 97-2003.. And no old documents that are archived are NOT updated every time a new version comes out that would take years of doing nothign but opening and resaving documets in many cases. The fact that some of you people actually think thats something you should be FORCED to do is insane. What kind of money and time do you waste in your companies anyways? No wonder no one in the business world is willing to trust or believe a legitimate IT administrator when they say something is REALLY a problem. When you guys waste billions it seems on this kind of crap. The fact that MS is now generating even more revenue on this Stupid issue is more reason to abandon them as a corporate provider.

Why support the legacy file type directly when you can simply run an instance of the legacy application in an encapsulated environment using application virtualization a la Microsoft SoftGrid?

For more information on Microsoft SoftGrid, browse to http://www.microsoft.com...r/softgrid/default.mspx.

-LMS

And these are the very same people who are trying to force their Office Open XML file format down the standards-making bodies' throats. I honestly hope that this contributes to their failure.

For the record, I use ODF, the format that won fair and square.

"For the record, I use ODF, the format that won fair and square."

That's where you are wrong.
Microsoft are doing everything they can to make OOXML to be the leader, and frankly, I think they may well have done it now, too.

No, it's not fair. It never is.

I'm certainly not saying OOXML is better, but I'm definitely saying it'll win, by hook or by crook.

Other than that, yes, your comment is fine.

Carry on.

What exactly did your format win?